Photo courtesy of The Week
With the Presidential election slated for September 21, three leading candidates stand out: the incumbent President Ranil Wickremesinghe (RW), the leader of the Opposition Sajith Premadasa (SP) and the leader of the National People’s Power party, Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD). Political communications in general and election campaigns more specifically focus on the construction of narratives that focus on individuals, issues, and sometimes, institutions. The aim of these narratives is to grab and retain public attention, and by extension, stymie any engagement with political opponents. These considered narratives construct ways of looking at country, community, the present context, recent history and desired futures. Computational propaganda, data-driven campaigns, hyper-personalised ad targeting and the use of generative AI have all accelerated the production of these narratives, contributed to their sophistication and diversified their distribution. Today’s media landscape during any election campaign renders output of what are clandestinely very tightly controlled productions spread by humans and automated accounts appear organic, diverse and seemingly part of a broader public’s enthusiastic support of candidate, campaign and party.
While it’s possible to unpack the technology and the strategic construction of these campaigns, that’s not the purpose of this article. Using a bi-lingual, official and unofficial selection of tweets, I want to show how those we understand to be RW, SP and AKD are artificially constructed identities.
Academics call the interactions with public figures like politicians, or presidents for that matter, mediated through social media as parasocial relationships. These are intense, passionately defended relationships that are entirely one-sided. Those who tweet about and follow individuals – in this case, RW, AKD, and SP – have no direct relationship with them with rare exceptions being, for example, members of their own party. And yet, they believe they genuinely know them including how they think, what they believe in and stand for. The cultivation of parasocial relationships is another defining feature of election campaign propaganda and what this article also seeks to illuminate.
The dataset
Conversations on and content produced for Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok are by order of magnitude greater than what’s posted to Twitter. But for the purposes of this article, just looking at tweets published by and referring to SP, RW and AKD is enough to highlight what’s true of social media discourse in general, especially in the lead up to September 21’s presidential election.
During the course of this week, I gathered just over 4,000 tweets associated with RW, AKD and SP. For all the official accounts I collected tweets going back to 1 January. Tweets by others in Sinhala and English were limited to around 500 against each individual. The spelling of names in Sinhala was taken from respective Wikipedia entries. Worth noting that NPP’s twitter account @nppslofficial doesn’t have a single tweet against it. All Sinhala tweets were machine translated to English before analysis. If there was Tamil content posted to the official accounts, these were also machine translated to English before analysis. I only studied the written content of tweets and not the content featured on any links in them (e.g., to articles or press releases). I also didn’t study embedded audio/visual media like memes, photos, audio and video.
| Name | Tweets from official accounts | Tweets referencing individual in Sinhala | Tweets referencing individual in English |
| Ranil Wickremesinghe | @rw_unp (61)
@ PMDNewsGov (603) |
512 | 518 |
| Sajith Premadasa | @sajithpremadasa (38)
@sjbsrilanka (102) |
520 | 516 |
| Anura Kumara Dissanayake | @anuradisanayake (106) | 512 | 518 |
Who is the real RW?
RW’s official tweets primarily focus on policy initiatives, economic reforms and diplomatic engagements. They present a carefully curated narrative of the country’s (post-aragalaya) economic, and social progress and strategic planning. In contrast, both Sinhala and English tweets referencing RW often discuss the immediate impacts of these policies, with Sinhala tweets tending to be more critical of their day-to-day effects on ordinary citizens (highlighting the gap between the narrative of recovery versus narratives of communities still reeling from, and dealing with precarity). English tweets, while also critical, tended to provide more macro level analysis of policy outcomes.
Official tweets emphasised positive economic indicators and successful negotiations with international creditors. They paint a picture of steady economic recovery. Tweets referencing RW, especially in Sinhala, often express scepticism about this specific narrative. English tweets acknowledged progress while pointing out there were a lot of remaining challenges. There was also a significant gap between official tweets and public tweets in addressing local, grassroots issues. While official tweets focussed on national level policies, Sinhala tweets often highlighted specific local problems and their existential impact on communities.
Tellingly, corruption and accountability are almost entirely absent from RW’s official output. However, it features prominently in both Sinhala and English public tweets, with accusations of corruption and calls for greater accountability. Sinhala tweets were more direct, personal and passionate in criticism, while English tweets often framed the issues in terms of governance and institutional reform.
Official tweets highlighted diplomatic relationships (often framed as successes and strong bilateral relationships) and international cooperation. Public tweets, particularly in English, often discussed the geopolitical implications of these relationships, especially concerning India and China. Sinhala tweets focused more on how these international relations affected domestic issues.
RW’s official output generally focused on Sri Lanka’s present and future, rarely referencing past political events (e.g., aragalaya). Public tweets, especially in Sinhala, frequently drew connections between the contemporary context and historical events, including the aragalaya, and the Rajapaksa regime.
Official tweets present the incumbent president as a credible, competent, forward-thinking leader. Tweets on RW in Sinhala often discussed his personal characteristics and leadership style in more detail, both positively and negatively. English tweets focused more on his professional capabilities and less on personal attributes.
Based on the official tweets by RW and the PMD, the incumbent president emerges as a seasoned statesman and visionary leader. He is a calm, collected figure steering Sri Lanka through turbulent times with a steady hand. RW is pragmatic problem solver, adept at navigating complex economic challenges and international relations. He is a reformer, committed to modernising Sri Lanka’s economy and institutions. RW is a unifying political figure, rising above partisan politics for the greater good of the nation. His intellect and experience are frequently highlighted, which help define a leader capable of making (and actually taking) difficult decisions. This version of Wickremesinghe is a diplomatic, visionary, erudite statesman, deeply committed to Sri Lanka’s progress on the global stage.
The Sinhala tweets paint RW in a more complex manner, with significant divergences in how he is perceived. To some, he is a cunning political survivor, adept at manoeuvring through Sri Lanka’s tumultuous political landscape (echoing what readers of a certain age will recall as the “old fox” epithet J.R. Jayewardene was called). Others view him as an out of touch elitist, disconnected from the daily struggles and lived experience of ordinary Sri Lankans. RW emerges as a controversial figure with some praising his political acumen while others criticise him for perceived allegiances to powerful interests and the Rajapaksa family. RW as a polarising personality in Sinhala tweets, inspiring both fierce loyalty and intense opposition. His long political career is seen either as a testament to his experience or evidence of his entrenchment to, and ongoing contributions to sustain a flawed and corrupt political system. This Wickremesinghe is sometimes Machiavellian and lacks the finesse of his official presentations.
The English tweets often project RW through an international or analytical lens. He emerges as a technocrat, valued for his economic expertise and diplomatic acumen. This RW is a pragmatic centrist, capable of engaging with international institutions (as an equal, instead of being subservient) and balancing competing interests. However, he’s also often characterised as a political chameleon, ever expedient and lacking a clear ideological core. English tweets frequently discuss his role as a stabilising force in Sri Lankan politics, although opinions vary on whether this stability comes at the cost of more radical necessary changes. His long political career is often framed in terms of resilience and experience but also as a potential liability in a country yearning for new, fresh political leadership.
Who is the real SP?
In SP’s official tweets, he is a polished, visionary statesman. He is a leader with a comprehensive vision for Sri Lanka’s future, adept at articulating complex policy proposals and adroitly engaging in high level bilateral, and multilateral relationships. SP emerges as a serious, policy driven politician, focusing on economic reforms, international relations and institutional changes. This Premadasa is comfortable on the global stage, regularly meeting with foreign dignitaries and commenting on international affairs.
The SP in the Sinhala tweet discourse is a more folksy, approachable character. This Premadasa is embedded in the local context and is as a man of the people who understands and empathises with their day-to-day struggles. The Sinhala tweets frequently highlight his visits to rural areas, participation in religious and cultural events and his personal interactions with citizens.
In SP’s official tweets, he is a unifying figure, able to bridge ethnic and religious divides. The SP in Sinhala tweets, while not contradicting this presentation, tend to focus more on his appeal to Sinhala Buddhists, highlighting his participation in Buddhist events and his connections to Sinhala culture.
Unlike the official presentations, which erase his family’s political legacy, Sinhala tweets frequently invoke SP’s father, projecting Sajith as the heir to a political dynasty. This creates a dichotomy between the self-made leader narrative/mould in official tweets and presentations of inherited political capital in Sinhala discourse.
The SP defined by English tweet discourse is a polarising figure with a complex political identity. While he champions the poor and working class, this characterisation is frequently contested with critics questioning his leadership abilities and experience. English tweets focussed more on SP’s political manoeuvring, his relationship with other political figures and debates about his readiness to lead Sri Lanka. English tweets often question Premadasa’s leadership capabilities and decision making skills, particularly during crises. SP’s relationship with other political figures, particularly the incumbent president, is perceived as fraught with tension. His refusal to join RW’s government is seen by some as principled opposition and by others as political obstinacy to the detriment of party, his candidacy and even country.
English tweets present SP as someone who champions welfarism, highlighting his school bus donation programme and emphasis on education reform. However, this image is complicated by accusations of using these programmes for political gain and questions about the transparency of their funding.
Who is the real AKD?
AKD’s own, official tweets define him as a principled, visionary leader with a coherent, clear plan for Sri Lanka’s future. He is articulate and policy oriented, adept at discussing economic reforms, anti-corruption measures and social justice issues. He is deeply committed to public service. AKD is a unifying figure epitomising competence and a readiness to govern.
The AKD in Sinhala tweets is a charismatic, captivating and almost messianic figure – a potential saviour for a nation in crisis. AKD is a revolutionary leader. His is a strong opposition figure standing up against corruption and mismanagement. Tweets feature patriotic narratives and overtones idealising AKD and glossing over criticism and controversies. This AKD is perfectly placed to bring about radical change and the custodian of the “system change” narrative from 2022’s aragalaya. AKD emerges as man of, and from the people – someone who understands and genuinely cares about the struggles of working class, ordinary Sri Lankans. His integrity and incorruptibility are frequent highlights with many tweets contrasting him favourably against presentations of other politicians perceived as irredeemably corrupt.
AKD in Sinhala tweet discourse is a fearless opposition leader, unafraid to challenge the status quo, and speak truth to power. His oratory skills are frequently praised with supporters describing his speeches as inspired, inspiring and mobilising.
The AKD defined by English tweets is a more nuanced character sans the messianic, idealised appeal. While still generally positive, tweets in English portray AKD as an intelligent and strategic political operator, adept at navigating Sri Lanka’s complex political landscape. There’s a greater focus on his/NPP’s policy proposals and how they may impact Sri Lanka’s economic prospects as well as bilateral and multilateral relationships (including, for example, with IMF). Some raise questions about his role with the JVP, the violence of the late 80s with fears expressed around how this may influence his policies and politics. AKD is generally described as progressive but there’s also significant debate about the practicality, substantive evidence base and implementation of his ideas, for example, around how his policies will track with the business community.
Mutable identities
While the concept of parasocial relationships may be difficult for some to grasp, what the study of content by and referencing RW, SP and AKD illuminates is how social media (and in this case tweets) craft personalities widely perceived as authentic or real. It also shows how official presentations influence but also diverge from narrative frames around each individual in English and Sinhala. Each candidate’s propaganda seeks to exclusively define a character presented as the ideal leader and president. These presentations are both complemented and contested by others in both Sinhala and English. Many buy into, and help spread highly curated, suave, official presentations. Others vehemently reject them or are more cautious.
Depending on which constellation of Twitter accounts one’s subscribed to – official, English or Sinhala – the central figure changes.
It’s possible to extrapolate from this limited capture of tweets how, at scale, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok and other social media, aside from hyper-partisan websites, blogs, email campaigns and WhatsApp groups go on to cement specific character presentations of all three candidates. These narrative presentations would also determine how opponents are perceived, which is something beyond this article. For example, Sinhala social media discourse around AKD would have a specific frame of reference against RW and also SP. English social media commentary and associated presentations RW would also render AKD and SP in a particular way. The danger is around narratives that seek to denigrate, demonise and dehumanise, presenting political opponents as enemies and electoral moments as zero-sum.
The upcoming presidential campaigns will see shape-shifting presentations of all three individuals erasing certain aspects, highlighting others and manufacturing qualities that may not even remotely exist. To study just these tweets is a lesson in how entrenched partisans are in how they perceive their preferred candidate. To make things even more complicated, the support for any one candidate isn’t the same across English and Sinhala discourse on Twitter, which can be read as divergences present in other, larger social media platforms.
Voting is about personality and less about policy. Propaganda fuels this. Campaigns are not unlike reality TV shows where we all root for someone based on how they are presented with no idea whatsoever as to who they really are. To forget this is to allow self-serving presentations determine how we see critical issues and what each candidate says about us, our past, present and future.
What’s “real” and “authentic” in politics is often manufactured. Today’s election campaigns are highly sophisticated and feature dark arts that instrumentalise our fears, anxieties and aspirations. To know this is to also realise that all election campaigns manipulate their audiences. This is, after all, propaganda’s raison d’être. The RW, SP and AKD one consumes in the media are fictional constructs intended to serve partisan ends. An informed citizenry is keenly aware of this and how election campaigns are inherently manipulative.
Sri Lanka’s upcoming presidential election should be about a robust interrogation of those who are in that (awful, all-powerful, corrupting) office and aspire to it. Social media presentations around any cult of personality mustn’t detract from this enduringly important critique.